LOW CARB SUCCESS

Anyone have some really great sucess story to share ??

On Feb 9, 1:56*pm, kickinkelly wrote:
Anyone have some really great sucess story to share ??

I did a low carb diet combined with weight training and i lost 10
pounds in 10 weeks.
it was tough tho.you need discipline.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:42:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 9, 1:56*pm, kickinkelly wrote:
Anyone have some really great sucess story to share ??

I have lost 23 pounds in 6 weeks so far.
I did not set out specifically to do a low carb diet, but basically
that's what I ended up doing since I cut out all high carb foods that
have empty calories such as flour, rice, corn, sugar, etc.
I also work out with dumbbells, do aerobic exercise, and walk for 4
miles a few days per week.

It wasn't that hard to do because I used hypnosis and affirmation
audio recordings about loving to exercise and dieting and things like
that. I also had a girl to motivate me.

In message
was claimed to have wrote:

It wasn't that hard to do because I used hypnosis and affirmation
audio recordings about loving to exercise and dieting and things like
that.

You do realize that in test after test, the only confirmed result of
these particular techniques is to reduce your wallet's weight, right?

I also had a girl to motivate me.

Ahh, see, now we're talking.

kickinkelly wrote:

Anyone have some really great sucess story to share ??

I started Atkins 1999-06-21.

The good -

I lost 40 pounds in 6 months following the directions of the
plan as written without any options to extend phases. By
then I'd found that my CCLL was 50 (I am in ketosis at 50
total, out of ketosis at 60 total), that I am wheat intolerant.
I eventually lost another 10 pounds by the end of the first
2-3 years before I transitioned to maintenance.

Having found a previously unknown wheat intolerance my
general health is better and my digestion is extremely
better. Even poor adherence during maintenance has
kept these health advantages.

The bad -

I have struggled to maintain my loss. I kept my best loss for
well over 2 years after I stopped losing (which would make it
over 4-5 years after I started) and my weight has bounced up
and down since.

wrote:
I started Atkins 1999-06-21.
The good -
I lost 40 pounds in 6 months following the directions of the
plan as written without any options to extend phases. By
then I'd found that my CCLL was 50 (I am in ketosis at 50
total, out of ketosis at 60 total), that I am wheat intolerant.
I eventually lost another 10 pounds by the end of the first
2-3 years before I transitioned to maintenance.

How did you manage not to get bored with induction foods, or did you not care
much?

Having found a previously unknown wheat intolerance my
general health is better and my digestion is extremely
better. Even poor adherence during maintenance has
kept these health advantages.

When you adhered poorly, how much did your weight fluctuate

The bad -
I have struggled to maintain my loss. I kept my best loss for
well over 2 years after I stopped losing (which would make it
over 4-5 years after I started) and my weight has bounced up
and down since.

I can only surmise that this bouncing up and down is directly proportionate to
your carb intake. I'd hate to think that some people really need to avoid carbs
entirely in order to lose or even maintain weight. I'd further hate to be one
of those hapless souls. I look forward to some returned carbs on the second and
third phases of South Beach, but if I start gaining or stop losing, they'll get
banished again.

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
wrote:

I started Atkins 1999-06-21.
The good -
I lost 40 pounds in 6 months following the directions of the
plan as written without any options to extend phases. *By
then I'd found that my CCLL was 50 (I am in ketosis at 50
total, out of ketosis at 60 total), that I am wheat intolerant.
I eventually lost another 10 pounds by the end of the first
2-3 years before I transitioned to maintenance.

How did you manage not to get bored with induction foods, or did you not care
much?

Induction in the directions of the book lasts 14 days. Not
an issue. I followed the directions in the book as they are
written, moved onto a phase named ONGOING WEIGHT
LOSS on schedule the morning of day 15 figuring it was
named that for a reason. Turns out it WAS named that for
a reason. It's the key to why I lost so well for the first 6
months - Because I followed the directions as they are
written. It's also the key to why I lost almost nothing in
the second 6 months - I rolled my own plan lower in carbs
for that period of time rather than follow the directions. And
so I learned the hard way that following the direction beats
not following the directions.

There's an ignorance game I never bought into and never
did in the first 6 months. It goes like this -

Dr Atkins spent decades designing and testing his plan.
I just read the book as the first low carb education I ever
tried. Therefore with this background I now know the
field as well as Dr Atkins. So I'm going to do what I think
it right not what the directions tell me to do. Since Dr
Atkins was as bad as a technical writer as he was as
good as a clinician I'm going to dig through his books
looking for statements that look like they give me
permission to do what I want to do, ignore their context,
ignore Dr Atkin's clinical experience, and do what I want
claiming that it's in the directions. Bingo I'll stay on
Induction as long as I like and ignore the book.

There are a ton of newbies who play this game. There
are a lot of regulars who encourage it. The fact is there
are people who lose well that way, and of course anything
that works well for one person will have proponents who
assert that since it worked well for them therefore it will
work well for everyone. It's false, just like the assertion
that since low fat works well for some therefore it will work
well for everyone.

Nope, I didn't do that. I took advantage of his decades
of experience and I *followed the directions*. I moved on
to OWL on the morning of day 15 and never got bored
with Induction foods. And sure enough I lost like magic
following the directions, even and especially the parts of
the directions that weren't obvious and that I didn't
understand.

Then 6 months in I rolled my own, settled at 30 grams
total per day because it was easy, and hardly lost a
pound for the next 6 months. At that point I was so
happy with my results for the first 6 months I didn't
really care if I lost more in the second 6 months. But
I didn't lose at that lower carb level. In fact I was so
puzzled by the experience that I've now spent the about
9 years since then studying biochemistry as a hobbiest
trying to figure out why truths like "less isn't more" are in
fact true and do in fact give better loss for more people
than the obvious. If the obvious were true and lower carbs
really did mean better loss then every single popular low
carb book would tell us to do that yet none do.

Having found a previously unknown wheat intolerance my
general health is better and my digestion is extremely
better. *Even poor adherence during maintenance has
kept these health advantages.

When you adhered poorly, how much did your weight fluctuate

Worst case +15 pounds in a year. Best case -10 pounds in
a year.

I'll note that losing across 2-3 years and keeping my initial
loss off WITHOUT HUNGER for better than two years puts
my results at much better than the typical experience. I'll
also note that I'm not in the 5% that has been able to keep
it off continuously for 5+ years. I'm not in that elite. But I
did lose it without hunger except at the short lived points in
the directions, I kept it off withouthunger, and I've managed
to relose any time I've tried without hunger.

The bad -
I have struggled to maintain my loss. *I kept my best loss for
well over 2 years after I stopped losing (which would make it
over 4-5 years after I started) and my weight has bounced up
and down since.

I can only surmise that this bouncing up and down is directly proportionate to
your carb intake.

Directly porportionate to the amount my carb intake exceeded
my maintenance quota that turned out to be 100 grams per
day. Don't play an ignorance game here that it starts at
zero and loss and gain are determined by that. They aren't.
If they were every single book would push us to lower and
lower carbs. They don't. No. There are carb levels that are
better for loss, better for maintenance, better for regain, and
back to better for loss again spanning across the spectrum
from low carb to low fat with regain in the middle.

It was a rare day I'd ever come close to 200 grams of carb
in a day yet I regained. Just like it said in the directions for
the maintenance phase. Funny how that worked out. The
closer to the middle I got, the more I'd regain. If you take
moderation as mixing carbs, fat and protein near equally,
then moderation utterly fails as a weight loss plan. All it
takes to confirm this as true is a trip to the mall and a
glance at the crowds of people there.

I'd hate to think that some people really need to avoid carbs
entirely in order to lose or even maintain weight.

"Entirely" is playing the ignorance game again. Have you
considered reading the directions in the book for your plan
of choice? There isn't a book out there that says to avoid
carbs entirely so it's clear that you didn't pay attention to
the book you will probably claim you read. Even though
I've only scanned most of the Agatston book and read in
detail about a tenth of it I can tell you with absolute
certainty there is no statement anywhere in it anything
like yours above.

I look forward to some returned carbs on the second and
third phases of South Beach ...

Ah, the directions. Funny how that works.

A suggestion - No games of extending phases because
you think doing that will work better than a good Dr A who
spent decades improving his plan with clinical practice
wrote in his book. He wrote his phases for a very simple
reason - They work better for more people for more loss
than not following his phases on schedule.

I disagree with Dr Agatston in specific details of his plan,
mostly in places he disagrees with Dr Atkins, but I'm
quite clear that following his directions as they are written
including the parts you don't agree with or don't understand
is going to work better than any variation you can come up
with by dragging out of context quotes out of his book. If
the books say phase N lasts K weeks then DO IT that way
for that long and faithfully move on to whatever the next
phase tells you to do on schedule. You'll get far better
success that way taking advantage of his plan than you'll
ever be able to acheive playing games that you know what
works better.

but if I start gaining or stop losing, they'll get
banished again.

If you manage to avoid the pitfulls of maintenance you'll end
up in that 5% elite who can keep it off. I hope it happens.
But don't imagine it's as easy as it sounds. The temptation
is great to view "no foods forbidden" as a reason for not
following the directions.

wrote:
Dr Atkins spent decades designing and testing his plan.
I just read the book as the first low carb education I ever
tried. Therefore with this background I now know the
field as well as Dr Atkins. So I'm going to do what I think
it right not what the directions tell me to do. Since Dr
Atkins was as bad as a technical writer as he was as
good as a clinician I'm going to dig through his books
looking for statements that look like they give me
permission to do what I want to do, ignore their context,
ignore Dr Atkin's clinical experience, and do what I want
claiming that it's in the directions. Bingo I'll stay on
Induction as long as I like and ignore the book.

Can you give an example of how what you wanted to do differed from Atkins'
directions and what you learned from following them? You seem to be saying
quite often that following the directions is key on any diet, yet directions
can often be vague or permissive. So, which exact directions do you tend to
follow and which do you consider vague enough for latitude?

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
wrote:

Dr Atkins spent decades designing and testing his plan.
I just read the book as the first low carb education I ever
tried. *Therefore with this background I now know the
field as well as Dr Atkins. *So I'm going to do what I think
it right not what the directions tell me to do. *Since Dr
Atkins was as bad as a technical writer as he was as
good as a clinician I'm going to dig through his books
looking for statements that look like they give me
permission to do what I want to do, ignore their context,
ignore Dr Atkin's clinical experience, and do what I want
claiming that it's in the directions. *Bingo I'll stay on
Induction as long as I like and ignore the book.

Can you give an example of how what you wanted to do differed from Atkins'
directions and what you learned from following them?

What I wanted was for it to be a turn key system. Maybe
a counting system like Weight Watcher points or the
portion system of Deal-a-Meal. Maybe a menu system
like so many plans. Nope, Atkins described a process
that customizes your food based on how your body
reacts to what you eat. What I learned is that one size
fits all plans work for a percentage of the population but
no such plan can work for everyone. A fully customized
plan may be more work but it works for a much higher
percentage. Potentially one could follow the sequence
of steps on Atkins and discover your maintenance food
is high carb low fat. I've met someone who had that
happen and they didn't want to say they were on Atkins
any more. But what they were eating was working great
for them.

What I wanted was for it to be obvious. The story above
may sound sarcastic but when it comes down to it it's
an extremely common story line by anyone who wants to
keep it obvious and wants to extend Induction. Nope,
the default plan on Atkins is to move on to phase 2 after
14 days. So during a time when a support board had a
large steady flow of new posters I tracked what happened
to how many people. It's a self selected sample so it's not
scientifically valid but it's the only data I've ever found that
does a numerical comparison between extended Induction
and following the directions - For every 1 poster who stayed
on Induction and continued to lose there were 7 posters
who stalled by staying on Induction. What I learned was
far more than "The chapter is named Ongoing Weight Loss
becuase that's what it really accomplishes" and far more
than "lower is not better no matter how obvious it seems".
What I learned was to dig into the biochemistry of why
folks stall by staying too low. It's the whole hormone
feedback loop of thyroid T3 and leptin and such.

What I wanted was no food to be forbidden. Nope, the
directions said try to add ingredients back in the order
listed in the "carb ladder" and to see what happens when
each one is added. Foods that cause problems get
written off as personal poisons. Being a pasta and cheese
hound I fussed over what would happen if I tested dairy
bby removing it for a couple of weeks then adding it back,
whew no problems for me. And removing wheat then
adding it back in a couple of months later, yikes for me
it triggered all sorts of problems. Thing is problem foods
tend to trigger cravings and kick folks off plan while
avoiding them tends to turn off cravings and make it no
big deal that a specific ingredient is forbidden. What I
learned is that cravings push a lot of people off plan and
trigger foods tend to get eaten whenever allowed and that
avoiding trigger foods tends to turn off the cravings they
trigger. This is very far from the obvious strategy of eating
a limited amount of the foods that are wanted - Any food
that makes you less hungry eat it but any food that makes
you more hungry don't eat it.

Then 6 months in I'd lost plenty and I was happy with my
progress so I tried eating 30 grams per day because it's
easy. And I stopped losing. I didn't stop following the
directions because I thought I could do better; I stopped
following the directions because eating 30 was a lot easier.
Yet I stopped losing. What I learned was more than just
"less isn't better no matter how obvious it sounds". What
I learned was sometimes it just isn't worth the effort of
following the directions when you're happy enough with
your progress to date. Yet by the 6th month without
loss I was no longer happy with doing it the easy way.
Then what I wanted was not following the directions to
start working. It didn't work like that.

You seem to be saying
quite often that following the directions is key on any diet,

That may sound extremely obvious, but if you read what people
write and what people eat and compare it with what the
directions say you'll discover that extremely few dieters do
follow the directions. At points that take a lot of effort or
thought or tracking what happens, most would rather use a
set menu than track results. At points that run against what is
obvious like moving on to the next phase giving better long
term results, most would rather do what's obvious than have
faith in the directions.

yet directions can often be vague or permissive.

Not if you use the rules of reading comprehension taught in
elementary school - When reading a book of non-fiction the
most important concepts are in the table of contents. The
process of reading a book of non-fiction is mechanically
different than the process of reading a book of fiction. The
index of a non-fiction book may point to individual topics
but every topic listed in the table of contents out-ranks any
topic not listed in the table of contents. A book of non-fiction
is not written to tell you what you already know or already
think but to tell you what you don't already know and to
correct what you think. When a book of non-fiction has
been through multiple editions the changes and corrections
are to be taken in the context of the original edition.

It's all fourth grade material on how to read a non-fiction
book. Folks love to dig out quotes and that's how the
vague and permissive stuff comes out. Go with the table
of context and it's a lot simpler though less obvious and
often not what's wanted. The Atkins book came out in
1972, 1993, 1999 and 2002. Extending Induction appears
in the table of contents only in the 2002. Interesting how
that works.

So, which exact directions do you tend to
follow and which do you consider vague enough for latitude?

Follow the rules of reading comprehension taught in fourth
grade and this problem gets, hmm, easy isn't the right
word. Doing something different from what you want and
that's not obvious isn't easy. I think the word is straight
forward - Here's a shovel and a mountain. Please move
the mountain ten meters south. The request is not complex
but it's not easy. The request is straight forward.

I have a suggested approach on how to view your book of
directions - "Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be
opened unto you." Seek simplicity and you'll find simplicity.
Seek complexity and you'll find complexity. Seek vague
and you'll find vague. Seek straight forward and you'll find
straight forward. So seek simple and straight forward not
complex and vague. This sounds very corny on its face
but try it and see how it works.

If you find yourself going through the index to find a quote
to answer a question, stop yourself and look in the table of
contents. If the topic is addressed in the table of context
you have no need to address it in the index no matter if
you like what you find or not. In Atkins there's the 4 phases
with how long each phase lasts so just do it that way. If
the topic is not addressed in the table of context understand
that it isn't a crucially important topic.

Trivia can be fun but never allow yourself to be bogged down
by trivia. Trivia doesn't appear in the table of context like
it does in the index. Seek and ye shall find, so seek the
important parts not the trivia.

Being an Agatston fan and on South Beach Diet you have
one good thing going for you - The good Dr A couldn't be
a work technical writer that the other good Dr A. The Atkins
books are filled with errors, hand waving explanations,
discussion of folks not following the basic directions, recipes
that don't follow the rules described in the main part of the
book and so on. But if you dig through the index trying to
get bogged down in trivia you'll acheive that. So don't look
for the trivia.

Understand a few basic principles of how the plan works and
you should be able to answer most questions. The level of
understanding isn't acheived by bogging yourself down in
trivia. It's acheived by giving priority to the topics in the
table of contents.